that state from red to blue. here's a pickle already. almost 119,000 vers were, quote, accidentally left off l.a. county polling place rosters. los angeles county, more than 5 million voters there the county registrar says 100,000 plus names were left off the roster due to a printing error. this mistake has reportedly affected about 35% of precincts in the county. voters whose names are inexplicably missing from the voting rolls when they turn up to vote are told not to worry. they're told to file a provisional ballot which officials say will be counted. but that is obviously setting some nerves on edge in california as we continue to watch results roll in around the country that does it for now, but lots of primary coverage to come tonight.

lawrence o'donnell isom up. he'll have an update on the important story of children be separated from their parents at the u.s. border. the biggest state, the biggest stakes on the biggest day of the imary. the story here in california, one we've been following is this question of there are seven house races, seven congressional raceshere demrats think they can flip the seats. republicans hold them in california, clinton won them in '16. democrats think they can flip them in the fall. they have this wild top-two primary system in california. can democrats make the ballot in november? they've got to be in the top two. this is dana rohrabacher,

republican ibt. let's see if we can get this up on the screen. top-two ary. everybody gets the same ballot, regardless of party, top two candidates regardless of party get through. this is a very tense situation for democrats. dana rohrabacher is moving ahead. the question is who is going to be behind him? you have a democrat running in second place. you can see the difference there. you're looking at less than 400 votes separating the front-running democrat. the issue here is they're just splitting the republican party california.trict, this part of rohrabacher, they see he's controversial. doesn't like the direction that acher is going, especially on russia, putin, those sorts of things. if enough republicans are with baugh, the democrat being vote spread out a little bit here, more republicans, if this holds, if what we're seeing holds, more republicans in this district voting or more voting for

republicans and democrats, this would be if baugh is able to leap frog over keirstead, this would be the scenario democrats dreading. in california, these things can go late in the night, the next day and for days and days and days. this may be one we are looking at to a while. let's look at the 39th district. a lot of this is in orange county. this is an open seat. long-time incumbent not running for reelection. you've got kim, a republican, moving wl io first place here. sis n cisneros, the democrat, he's spent a lot of money, he's a loery winner. this is a far-right candidate, phil liberatore, put a lot

behind him to get republicans excited and to dilute the vote. these were the two republicans democrats were most worried about getting into that second spot. let's go back to the first screen on 39. can we go back to that first screen? there you go we have more strots come in. this is exactly what democrats wanted to see in this race you have a democrat here, a democrat here, a lot of blue under that first place, so democrats does not like like that lockout thing is going to

happen in the 49th. here's one, though, this was not on the ray ddar coming into the night. the republican congressman, calling him the winner, in first, but question is, who comes in second? this is a sleeper who snuck up. this is ted howze. this is a grassroots conservative candidate. he's smeneaking up there. harder is the front running democrat now, but 700 votes separate them. there's a lot of democrats, showing you the next screen, a lot of democrats behind them, spread out democratic vote, h d harder ahead now, can he hold on to that? if howze gets up there, that's one democrats did not see coming. this is a clinton district. that's what we are looking at. more votes in the next few hours, and california, they have a lot to come in and get counted tomorrow and in the days to come. i'm not sure how much we'll call.

by the way, governor's race, one other thing to note quickly, i want to show you the governor's race in california, the question coming in, couldepublicans get that sec spot? they are going to get the second spot, john cox, newsom, a statewide candidate and talk republicans may be a little better in the race than expected. joining us now to break down the results, breaking down results in seven other states. we have maria, president and ceo, and msnbc contributor, david johnson, and ed john, and, maria, starting with you. i'll just -- i've talked for a look time here. curious looking at the results in california, what do you think of it? >> california i my home state so what's happening there, not only is fascinating, but it's

actually quite telling that you have a general primary going to determine the way that possibly actually could shape up congress, and i think that's what the republicans are concerned with. look, the fact that you have a lead but such competition among the own party with the person in third is a testament people don't like what's happening right now with the dotted line for the russian full stop, but i think we're going to see something interesting in the scenarios because most people come up and basically more than likely actually give that district a run for its money. what's going to be curious, though, is whether or not in the central valley you're going to get a lot of latino voters that are young voters, next gen dumped in a lot of money on the ground. people coming of age who did not participate before because they were not old enough. that's the coin toss. whole swath that's behind you,

potentially going to turn purple in the dterms. >> all right. john, i just -- we have numbers coming in, news, and someone just handed me a report, g piece of information. if we can confirm it, we'll get back to that. but california, there are seven hillary clinton republican held house districts, a third of what democrats need. one of the questionsding into tonight was, how would republicans feel about the drib districts coming out of it? what should republicans take away right now in. >> i think, look, this jungle primary system is so singular and bizarre and gamesman ship with democrats trying to goose the vote of extremely conservative republicans and all that is hard to take a sort of regi general lesson. if it happens to twof the districts and end up blocking out the democrats in the top two

or one, that's insanely significant because underost circumstances if they had not -- california had not passed reform that started in 2012, you could probably assume that in a favorable election for democrats, all those seven would go. all of them. thha a wave is, right? everything sort of tends to go in one direction. if you instituonally structure it so that's prevented as an unintended consequence of reform, you know, you could have american politics totally flipped on its head so that democrats could have won, could have taken the house, and will not be able to by one vote or one or two seats. >> it is fascinating because the system in california, everybody runs on the same ballot, every voter gets the same ballot. this was passed by referendum,

and is this something that you might think will be revisited after this year. a poll today seems popular with california residents, think of a blue verye state, trump blamed the popular vote loss, and yet reality for democrats is uncomfortable situations right there in the ballot. >> presumption when passed this was going to moderate candidates right? as a political scientist, we have something call a law where basically if you have a first pass opposed system, that moderates candidates anyway, moderate and limit the number of parties you have. i understand why this was passed. it does not end up a good idea long term. you can create problems because what you essentially have, people call it a jungle primary. this is the hunger games primary. you have all different democrats who are trying to kill each other and slash each other and hope they get to the end of the that's not necessarily the most effective thing you want as a party. yes, we don't want an old-school hall where the leadership in smoke filled rooms decides who the democrats are, but there

needs semblance of party control and unity of the you have 7%, you need to go. at 4%, you need to go. there's a lot of black candidates, we can't have five black people run against one of women, et ce, et this ceterat that could be a lesson the california democratic party learns as well. tell lower tier people, get out of the race, you're not going to win, but that's hard to do. people are passionate. there's a strong line of encouraging victory and seeming like you're squelching your own party. >> that's true. >> the challenge in califnia the moment the party makes aed no, we don't want you on the ballot, that revolutionizing people and counter intuitive. the idea that anyone in california totes the party line is a testament of why we have a jungle primary. that just wouldn't work. >>n as the establishment out

to get you. >> it started in the republican party in which 2010 which being an insurgent in your own party is a net positive for some people, number one, two, theeakness of the state and national parties and their inability to do what parties did with a flick of ager just 20 years ago and, certainly, thro american history, which is to say, no, no, no, you're not running. i mean, if you keep running, if you keep running, we're going to, you know, weaver going to ruin your business or, you know, give you something so that y can run next time, or we'll set you have a legislative seat for you. >> the decentralization of fundraising, they fundraise on their own without the party line, that gives this idea that the movement is coming from the people, that the party's not basically doing the hall as mentioned earlier, but the people moving it forward, and if you asked what is changed in politics more than anything,

it's the decentralization of traditional funding that's come to the candidates where it's usually five or six people that decide to write the big checks, and now it's a level playing field that anyone can give a dollar and give people really boosts to run a candidacy. >> right. >> and you look at -- >> sorry. >> go ahead. >> you look at a district like 48, like, those guys are only one or two points apart. you're not going to convince either one to drop from the race. that's been objectively speaking one of thes nastyist races. this is campaign, like, really, really ugly between the two. they both have absolutely legitimate reasons to be in the race, and so, you know, sometimes this is the cost of democracy. you have to have people willing to slug it out. i think in the end, i doubt democrats are probably going to get lock out the seats. democratic votes will come in later. the way they are sweating the night out, unlikely this will be

adopted in virginia, georgia, or other purple states that don't want to run the risk. >> in templrms of the question this happens in california, the late vote, all of that, what happened in the past is basically tonight and into tomorrow, about two-thirds of the vote generally is counted, and then over next month, over the next number of weeks the other third is counted. when i looked at this,ooking statewide, the race of 2016, there was a swing post-election run, a lot of that comes from the highly populated democratic centers like l.a. county. look at the individual congressional directs that have been represented by republicans for a while, democratic swing was not as prevalent. we looked at 49th district, the late vote was 51-49 democrat there in 2016, so i'm not sure how much it changes. maybe it's different in a primary, but points to how many

variables there are in a system like this. you just don't have that many other states, and it's not been tested that many times here that the ballot initiative is less than ten years ago, and this is what we've got. i do want to in the few minutes left, though, shift to national implicationserement one question i looked at on special election nights, primaries, the qn of energy, and, maria, wondering, are you seeing any clues here to that? energy for democrats, energy for republicans, in california anywhere else tonight? >> we saw, once again, 60% of the people winng sfa are women so wave of women coming in is on it, but i have to recognize that we have just elected the very first native d looks like also s from new we have a latina governor from w mexico. those are good wins. you'll see math in montana you have while tester won, there's a republican possibility carrying on as well.

you are going to have a lot of close races, but it'ss - i would actually garner to say it's not as much as a wave seen in virginia, georgia, and alabama so really a lot of the stuff c im th base and republican party, they are just as energized as we had seen as previously within the democratic party. >> that is -- >> i think that's true with the results in california. you shouldn't expect a bigger wave in the close congressional directs held by republicans, and you're just not seeing that. >> we'll see the late vote, but that's initial reactions. >> right. thes with information over the past month to suggest that all sorts of -- that things are sort of closing, right? that democratic enthusiasm is matched by republicans' t enthusiasm, generic ballot, democrat or republican to be your congressman in november is narrowing, and, you know, i think everybody sort of assumed that the level of democratic

enthusiasm, wild over enthusiasms for republicans in 2017 would carry through 2018, and so far we don't see that much evidence of that. i say that the democratic enthusiasm is still greater than the republicans', and democrats are turning out, and there was this result in a state senate race in missouri that was carried by -- that no one thought a democrat would carry, and theemtarried it. there's bits and pieces to suggest this, but if i were a democratic political consultant or person in the congressional or senate campaign commiti tonid wee on our i me, i don't think you say, oh, my god, baton down the hatches it's a disaster, but -- thatjason, this idea that the blue wave, post-alabama, post-2018, do you feel it's receded? >> no. t's still going, steve. here's the thing. it's like in sports, hey, score board.

democrats just flipped a 45th seat. as a political scientist, i'm not a fan of the generic congressional ballot. i thought there was statistical theoretical problems with reading too much into that. what i sees this. if you've got lowball lot special elections, people are enthusiastic enough to switch seats, but 10% flips from how o, that shows t's a trump two grassroots enthusiasm for democrats. california is an anomaly. you have so many different unique factors here that i don't think the perceived lack of enthusiasm or lack of turnout in s sn to be indicative of what's happening in the rest of the country. i think the democrats are fine. i have no dog in this fight, but it seems to me that their success at the ground level with county commissioners, with state house and state senate races seems to me these people are enthusiastic and driven to vote like republicans will be, but the democratic enthusiasm might be spread throughout more

states. >> that's something i would actually really focus on. what the republicans have done is tapped away from the plan. remb cr land, they were going to test whether or not the tax plan sticks to the republican. that failed. their tactic shifts to anti-immigrant rhetoric. 14,000 were anti-immigrant, giving up the base. democrats have to come up with a stronger economic messagend stronger clarity why the anti-immigrant is not part of the american dna. results show tonight it's working to bring in folks that are some more extreme members the republican party. it there. everyone, stick around, we're back with updated numbers ler hour, and up next, lawrence on the big picture in the russian investigation and what putin says about his relationship with donald trump, and if you want to catch lawrence's original opening segment on t trump-mueller investigation, watch the video on the last word website.

zplmplts we got a reminder from david corn today to remember to focus on the big picture, and that is a reminder that we need over and over again. he wrote a piece arguing for a simple reset of our focus on what the russia investigation is actually about. i will paraphrase david elegant summary to simply this.

russia launched an information warfare against the united states during our presidential election with the intention of hurting the democratic candidate and helping the republican candidate. the republican cdidate's campaign then tried to collude secretly with russia in a meeting at trump tower while the candidate, himself, was publicly trying to collude with russia by publicly begging russia to steal and publish the democratic candidate's e-mails. the republican presidential candidate and his campaign ne themselves with the country that invaded the united states, invaded the election of the american president. as david corn put it, the trump team, quote, assisted a foreign adversary as it was attacking the united states. the evidence is rock-solid. they committed a profound act of betrayal. this is the scandal. and that is what we should never

lose sight of when we examine the details of the scandal, the dozens of scandals that exist within and under that scandal. thee scandal of the trump campaign's deliberate alignment with russia in attacking the united states. with that in mind, it is not surprising that in the new interview with austrian television, putin brags about his close relationship with donald trump and how often they speak on the phone including something we never heard before. quos, indeed, donald trump and i have met more than once at various international venues, and secondly, we regularly talk over the phone. our foreign affairs departments and special services are working fairly well together in areas of mutual interest. above all, in the fight against international terrorism. this work is ongoing. we've learned something new about president obama's view of putin from ben's extraordinary

new book. it says that president obama neither liked nor loathed putin nor did he subscribe to the view that putin was all that tough. if he was that sure of himself, obama said, he wouldn't have his picture taken riding around with his shirt off. joining us now is ben, former deputy national rity adviser and speech writer for president obama and now an msnbc political contributor. his new book is "the world as it is: a memoir of the obama white house", and, ben, you have rave reviews for the book. it is not the typical inside the white house memoir. you are not trying to show how right you were about everything while everyone else was wrong. >> yeah, yeah. >> but take us into president obama's view of putin. it seems like such a clear and simple form of analysis looking at putin's public grandiosity and obama who didn't have that,

wondering what's that about? >> yeah. well, part of it, you know, first time putin was president was flushed are oil revenues and could stay in power by spreading money around. the second time, he didn't have that. russia was on its back foot. what did he do? reach for a brand of politics rooted in tribalism, racism, nativism, make russia great again, look at the soviet union, riding around with a shirt off, and obama did not have the patience for that posturing, and thought in the long view all putin was doing was hurting russia, but, obviously, he's caused damage in the short term. >> what do you think of the new report in ausia that putin say him and donald trump talk on the phone a lot. >> yeah. >> we have to say now "traditional" from that previous pre-trump world, whenever conversations occurred, they were generally made public by previous presidents, correct?

>> exactly what i thought as soon as i saw that. i describe 90 minute phone conversations with obama and putin, always read those out. as soon as i saw , ty must be talking and not reading calls outli there's only been a handful, so it begs to question how much is donald trump talking to putin, what are they talking about, and,e way, why not rd it out? you know, what are they trying to hi >> to the other side ofhat, why read it out? why shouldn't the president of the united states have private phone calls with foreign leaders that are never publicly recorded? >> put it this way. there's the public interest in knowing if the president of the united states is talking to the president of russia or another major foreign power. we generally read out all conversations unless they were about something secret and sensitive, and, you know, in the book, i descredhere was a t ofeetings with the cubans that were secret. we did not read those out because we didn't want people to know we had a diplomatic track

going with cuba. only time it was not read out is if there's a reason to keep it secret. again, makes you think, what's the reason they keep conversations secret. >> the -- there's no telling what else they keep secrets not publicly releasing who visits the white house. what do you see at stake in information like that? us, we don't k the way we used to know who has been visiting the white house. >> gives y picture who has influence in the white house. are they meeting withists and theypes of people who have financial interests in what they are doing. because democrats do note control of congress, too, there's not oversight of the issues. what is the foreign corruption taking place. how often are certain foreign interests, you know, are the people of foreign financial interests that might intersect with the trump families' financiaterest visiting the white house. all of thoses give a picture who has influence in the trump white house, and we don't have that. >> you were with president obama for eight years, full ride, and what's getting attention in the

book is president obama's reaction to the election night of the election of donald trump. there was interpretation of what your book has to say and the quotes of president obama reflecting, wondering how this happened, wondering what he might have misread about the american voter, about the american public. do you wanto set any straight? are you heang ppl misinterpreting what you've reported the president to have said? >> just one thing. i think what paints a picture of him going through the same process of a lot of us. called me on election night and said, well, that happened. over the course of the next several days, how much did russia i the election, but, also, did we get something wrong here? did people want a different brand of politics from obama, progressive brand of politics, fall back into the grievances that trump had? he did say, you know, was i ten years too early? >> what did he mean by that? >> frankly, what he meant was there's a demographic tipping point that's going to happen in

the country where it's more likely you're going to have more people who are president who look like obama or asian obama or latino obama. what was misinterpret or somewhat arrogant, he second guessed what he's done and wrestling with it like everybody else, but in the end, though, i believe frankly ten, 20 years from now, america looks more like barak obama's america and his politics than donald trump. this is the last gasp of a certain kind of politics like putin represents that in russia. the fact that those two, you know, forces conveed in our election, putin and trump, it is, i think, two sides of th same coin. people who don't have a vision for the future, so all they do is soak up grievance and look to the past. >> the book is "the world as it is," and the world as you had to learn that it is. >> yes, yes. >> you started off with a view of the world that's very different from the one that you

ended with. >> yes. >> thank you for joining us. >> appreciate it. when we come back, why the united nations today says the trump administration is violating human rights. that's next.

to keep our community safe. before you do any project big or small,

pg&e will come out and mark your gas and electric lines so you don't hit them when you dig. call 811 before you dig, and make sure that you and your neighbors are safe. the united states of america at the order of president of the united states and the attorney general is putting children in cages tonight. that is the country we now live in. today, attorney general jeff sessions was busy defending the trump administration's policy that has now been condemned by

the united nations. the u.n. high commissioner for human rights said this today about the united states new practice of separating parents and children at the southern border including some who have broken no law, who have just presented themselves at the border seeking asylum. u.n. said it amounts to arbitrary and unlawful interference in family life, and is a serious violation of the rights of the child. past presidentiaadministration have to varying degrees tried to be international champions of human rights, pressing regimes around the world to improve their records on human rights, but the trump administration more than any other in history simply ignores the subject of human rights. human rights is not even on the agenda with the world's greatest human rights violator, north kr korea. the president of the united states actually intends to have the first ever presidential summit meeting with north korea's dictator without ever

mentioning human rights, and now the united nations, to america's great shame, has turned its human rights focus to our southern border, and this is what the attorney general of the united states had to say about it today. >> yes. what is happening is we're having more people coming, bringing children with them, entering between the ports of entry, between the pf entry illegally, and they're not -- you can wanot give them immi immunit immunity. that's an offense. we believe every person who enters the country illegally like that should be prosecuted, and you cannot give immunity to people who bring children with them recklessly, improperly, you should never do that. >> there's not a new serge of

parents and children coming to the southern border. there is no new serge as the attorney general is trying to suggest that there is. what is new is this trump policy. the president of the united states spent his day today tweeting angerly about his attorney general, not because of the lack of sympathy for children at our southern border, but because of the attorney geral's lack of sympathy for the president that allowed jeff sessions to rescue himself from the investigation of the president, instead of not rescuing himself and preventing any investigation of the president. the president saw some children today. he saw them on the south lawn of the white house where he was trying to get the country to think about football and the national anthem. even though he, himself, does not know the words for the national anthem, that is how the president spent his day. the president, who has ordered american government workers to rip children from their mothers

and fathersarms, the president who is literally, according to senator's report, putting those children in cages. the president who is now, according to the united nations, a human rights or. we'll have more on the president who has decided to put kids in cages next.

on the day when the united

nation high commissioner for human rights said that the united states is violating the human rights of children on the southern border, the attorney general said this. >> it's certainly not our goal to separate children, but i do think it's legitimate to warn people who come to the country unlawfully bringing children with them that they can't expect that that they'll always be kept together. >> joining our discussion now, the prident and ceo of msnbc kri contributor, and the first point i want to make here is that this is a new policy. this is not forced on the trump administration by law. this is no law that has to be changed to change this policy. this is a choice of donald trump and jeff sessions. >> that's exactly right. this was an idea that

secretary -- chief of staff secretary kelly when he was homeland security, tha went into play saying that was unlawful, and what the u.n. did today was marking what united states is doing as violating the rights of children. on may 7th, jeff sessions stood before the american people and decide td he would separate parents from children because he felt it was a way to detour people from coming to the border, and whayw americans need to understand are the children and families that are coming right now on the border are not normal immigrants. they are refugees, most fleeing violence and fleeing extreme poverty, and that they are traversing three to four countries to get to the border, and by law, we're supposed to be able to process them when they seek asylum. under the new licy, that's not happening. instead, what they are saying, the department of homeland security processes them as criminals and separating parents from families under that os

missi, but it's contrary to the president and law. >> when the president tet about this, he's, of course, blamed democrats who have absolutely nothing to do with it, but what you see in that is the president implicitly agreeing this is a bad policy. that's why he' trying to blame it on the law and blame it on democrats. >> it's completely avoiding his responsibility. this came directly from his white house. the new policy to separate children from parents at the border is not law. it's not legislation. it was not passed by congress. it was coming e kwing as an ord the president's office, his order, that jeff sessions is executing. and neilson executing against. >> the idea that the white house has no power to stop this tomorrow -- >> nonsense, lawrence, absolutely nonsense. he woke up on may 6th and

decided may 7th he was going to implement the policy. phoned up jeff sessions and basically said, jeff, you have to implement this. this is completely out of the d discretion of the white house, nothing to do with congress, but should signal to the republicans and democrats they have to pass a comprehensive immigration reform. what's coming from the white house, because of a lack of unified voice on immigration is a defactor immigration policy not only separating children from parents and putting them in cages children as young as 2, but the aclu notified and alerted authorities they have witnessed children as young as 53 weeks, lawrence, facing court and a judge without a parent. can you imagine? this is happening in modern day america, and the fact there's not more outrage. where is the republican leadership on this? by allowing the trump administration to create not only these types of policies, but converting documented immigration -- documented

immigrants like protective status people and resending daca, the trump administration is on a journey to create close to a million people that are currently documented undocumented overnight by 2020. by de facto, he's creating a new class of undocumented people. he's also creating a whole class of trauma among children. the united nations had a right. this is a violation of children's rights. this is not who we are. we are the ones, if anything, on a global -- on the global war -- on the global stage often telling people what we expect on how you treat minorities and treat the most vulnerable among us. this is not leadership. >> and jeff merkley has shown leadership on this by going down there to the border to learn what's going on. leaving it there, maria, thank you very much for joining us. really appreciate it. >> thank you for covering this. as you know and can tell on the screen, it's election night in america tonight. that means steve j us next

to tushat to watch.

hello, again, breaking news california imary election results, again, following this possibility of democrats, lock the out of the general election ballot in one of the districts in california, that they think they can flip the poll, but they need to flip the poll it win back the house. the republican in 48, something

we are keeping a particularly close eye on. see the situation here? there's a lot of confusion around here now for a couple reons. number one, there's a lot of vos ming in through the ot of mail. there's days of counting here, but right now, there's a situation, oic results showing a second republican hundreds of votes away from joining dana there in the top two. that would be the scenario for democrats. there's reports online, a political reporter following this closely, saying he's taking a look at these thinking there may be a tab ulation error resulting in votes for the 4th place democrat. democrats werpl here. if tt's true, we have a spotter out there trying to track down the information. we don't know if that's true. we adodon't know if that's what going on, but if that is what proves to be the case, you could have him moving into second complicated and creating a

three-way tie for second place, a lot of chaos there. meanwhile, jason johnson, john, they are back with us, d, jason, beginning with you. and, again, it is interesting to look at the results in california. it varies in some of the districts, but i do think the story we're seeing here tonight, in part, is, each base here, each party seems to be excited about the election in california. >> well, look, you have democrats saying this is our opportunity to take our country back, and you got republicans saying this is our opportunity to keep our country in the hands it's already in, but what's also been important, and this mentioned in the last segment, you know, the issue of immigration, it is not just a sort of racial bug-a-boo in california. it's a functional practical issue. talking immigration in ohio, you're just dog losing. you are talking immigration in california, and there are people who have concerns. maybe majority of californians do not want a border wall, but that's bolstering republicans, and, also, we have to see,

latino turnout is not consistent with what we've seen in other states. that's telling in a state like california so it remiains to be seen in late votes change thes successful this fall, they need tout latino voters and be enthusiastic through november. >> john, in terms of energy on the republican side, and, again, i've seen new jersey turnout figures there earlier, maybe not as encouraging for republicans in new jersey where there's very competitive races as well, but in california, these results, i think, on the more encouraging side in terms of what they looked for. if there was an uptick in republican energy here, what would you account for? what do you think caused it? >> i think that there is better news this year than last year. we have unemployment at an

18-year low, the economy is humming along, "new york times" saying friday they could not come up with enough positive adjectives to describe the current coio of the economy. republicans are feeling be, you know, whatever anxiety the president's behavior in 2016 was causing them, and whatever problems everybody may have with the substance of the trump presidency, for republicans, things stabilized, so they are not as depressed as they were in 2017. my view is while some people may say that democrats really have to come up with a positive message, i think part of what is really important here and was certainly the case in '10 a and '14 against republicans, they have to suppress and get part of the enthusiasm -- not only enthusiasm for your own

side, but depress the enthusiasm of the other side, and if republicans continue to feel pretty good about where the country is, that's going to be -- t to helpful to them and is going to mitigate effects of the democratic e enthusiasm seen since the election of 2016. >> so interesting. we get metrics, generic ballot looking at that one, tightening, trump's approval ratings, it's going to take awhile, as we say, for the california results to come in. we'll see what the lessons are there, hints are with respect to party energy, but there's so many variables, and you start to see, especially when california all comes in, a picture for the fall, a more clear picture taking shape, so we're going to continue to follow t emerging in california the next few hours, john, jason, thank you for joining us. i'm steve and will be back for more updates later, and lawrence

is back with "the last word" next.

and here is steven colbert's with rudy's latest defense of the president. >> he told the huff po, i don't know how you can indict the president while he's in office no matter what it is. even if he shot james comey. so there it is. [ laughter ] the president can commit any crime he wants. he's a one man purge, which will

make a great new campaign slogan, trump 2020, i could kill you in your sleep. [ cheers and applause ] bu it's true. actually could -- these hands. these hands. >> steven colbert's gets tonight's last word, the 11th hour with brian williams starts now. -- results. i want to take you through california. set the scene here, big picture, what is at stake right now. 23 seats, that's the target for democrats nationally. they need to pick off 23 republican seats to take back the house. there are seven for them